U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 03-04-2012, 07:02 AM
Location: Texas
26,599 posts, read 11,126,365 times
Reputation: 6101


Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
Such a long post to basically say nothing...impressive.
I gave examples and you ran from them. You can read but you are very bad at deciphering things.
Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
There is much talk of "twisting" and "loving force" and accusations of lies, but nothing that addresses the subject in a meaningful way.
I gave examples and proved you love to use force to get your way. You refused to address them, That's your fault not mine.
Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
And duh...I had to wait all these years to learn how America was founded...LOL!
You still don't know. You can lie to yourself all you want. Your post proves you don't understand the reasons for our founding or don't believe in them, take your pick.

Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
And I advocate the stealing of other people's property?
Since when is someone elses work YOUR property???? My work is my property. I can grant you the privilege of paying for my work just like I can grant you the privilege to walk on my property if you want to take a short cut. Way to dodge.
Learn the difference between a right and a privilege. Until you do you will continue to be uninformed.

Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
Sorry, but you were clearly too emotional to formulate a decent response based on facts and not the simple repeating of tired and trite RW buzz-words.
That's your twisted agenda. I gave examples and asked questions. You can dodge all you want. Please learn the difference between a right and a privilege, you wont look so ignorant.

Originally Posted by Evenstar51 View Post
Try again when you've calmed down a bit.
I am calm. Sorry to disappoint you but you're perceptions are misguided again, go figure. I gave examples and you ran from them.

Tell me again how I am a religious person who wants to force my beliefs on others, I could use the laugh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 03-04-2012, 07:12 AM
Location: Texas
26,599 posts, read 11,126,365 times
Reputation: 6101
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
I don't remember an outcry when mammograms, annual health checks, and other preventative care was added by mandate. Preventing pregnancy is a pretty big deal so why complain now? Why birth control? Could it a MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE? (or is it really about those s_utty women..be honest)

Say it aint so.
It is an election year and the panderers need their base so they change their strategy focus is all. They were against the big government Democratic Parties health care mandate, period. The Repubs are pro Life remember, unless it comes to the death penalty and people in the Middle East. Except for Ron Paul who is consistently pro Life!!!!!

Two Republican candidates, Romney and Newt, are against the healthcare mandate now although they were for it before. To be fair to Mittens he thinks it should be a state issue now. (He may have thought otherwise before. I don't know for sure, just playing the flip flop odds.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-04-2012, 07:13 AM
12,870 posts, read 13,106,155 times
Reputation: 4453
Originally Posted by muleskinner View Post
So who ARE they flocking to then? All of the GOP stooges with the exception of Paul are chickenhawk warmongers and corporate lackeys too.
i do think a lot of women support ron paul.

it seems, though, that we generally wind up being stuck between 2 horrible choices in the elections. i have to vote for "change" again because i see what is happening to our country-whether it would be for ron paul or romney. (i wouldn't vote for santorum or gingrich no matter what). of course, i still hope that people will start dealing with reality and support ron paul, instead of this fantasy recovery land that the media promotes.

here are the numbers:

the number of Americans living in poverty (or at least doing a damn good job of fooling the government in pretending they do). As of December, per SNAP this number just hit another record high of 46.5 million, an increase of 384,000 in one month (and ending the trend of declines from October and November), 2.4 million in 2011 (about as many as have dropped out of the Labor force, hmmmm), and 14.3 million since Obama took office.

46.5 MILLION people, and 14.3 MILLION since obama took office-that is staggering!

here is the reality:

one wonders why Fannie lost $16.9 billion in 2011 (up from $14.0 billion in 2010), and needed another taxpayer injection of $4.6 billion in Q4: it is so banks can pretend reality exists, and in the process avoid evicting tenants who live in these underwater homes, and who can pretend they don't have to pay their bills, but can spend money on iGadgets instead. Yet the scariest data point is that if one is currently in Nevada and looks at three houses right this second, two of them are underwater, or said otherwise, have negative or near-negative equity.

here is the fraud:

shadow inventory. The banks are creating artificial demand by keeping millions of properties off the market. They are also selling real estate in bulk cheaply to hedge funds-properties NOT put on the market for the general public.

we just can't keep going down this path.

this is a disaster in the making-this inability to accept that there is a problem and then have LEADERSHIP to actually make an effort to fix the problem.

Last edited by floridasandy; 03-04-2012 at 07:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-04-2012, 07:41 AM
5,697 posts, read 5,441,404 times
Reputation: 1937
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
Very, very, VERY bad news for the GOP. In the past six weeks, since the Clueless Party nose-dived into the empty pool of the Great Birth Control Debate of 2012, Obama has opened up a thirteen Point lead over Romney with women:


Obama 54%, Romney 41%, a ten point swing since Dec.

Well done, sirs! Well done
I am a woman and I have NEVER flocked to Obama
he is a hack, plain and simple
and this SOB has a long way to go to NOV!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-04-2012, 07:47 AM
Location: Tampa Florida
22,243 posts, read 15,260,971 times
Reputation: 4583
I just heard Howard Dean say, "we need to put the younger generation into power as rapidly as possible". I think he is absolutely right and I would add, more women as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-04-2012, 07:49 AM
6,351 posts, read 5,433,233 times
Reputation: 8847
When I hear the word "flock" I think of a bunch of brainless geese.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-04-2012, 07:50 AM
Location: Kansas
19,187 posts, read 14,937,942 times
Reputation: 18247
Not this woman! I will vote for ANY candidate that runs against him. He is a joke. A puppet. It was a great American tragedy to have him elected in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-04-2012, 02:58 PM
Location: California
30,499 posts, read 33,312,187 times
Reputation: 25972
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
Not this woman! I will vote for ANY candidate that runs against him. He is a joke. A puppet. It was a great American tragedy to have him elected in the first place.
You will vote for a joke, a puppet, an American tragedy. You just said so.

Informed voters are the best!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-04-2012, 05:17 PM
Location: #
9,605 posts, read 14,627,287 times
Reputation: 6278
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
Not this woman! I will vote for ANY candidate that runs against him. He is a joke. A puppet. It was a great American tragedy to have him elected in the first place.
You are from Kansas, so I'm not really all that surprised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-04-2012, 06:07 PM
Location: Illinois Delta
5,763 posts, read 4,340,260 times
Reputation: 2060
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
I don't know what this means except that you are saying YOU know better than what the GOP says the issue is about. That's the problem with too many people they think they know what someone really really means. When in fact all they do is try to fit the scenario to their twisted agenda.

As a woman, it strikes me as odd that the GOP is saying that it's fine for
employers to deny women access to any kind of medicine or treatment, particularly when meds for ED, penile pumps and vascectomies are still covered for men; that's inequality. I suffered from endometriosis and had an ectopic pregnancy that ruptured my fallopian tube; it required emergency surgery and the loss of one ovary and its corresponding tube.
I'd prefer that no other women would suffer such trauma because their
employer believes that it's their right to deny hormonal treatment as it might be used for contraception. I fail to see why an employer can deprive women of care based on their personal beliefs. That is the twisted agenda: That anyone could arbitrarily come between a woman and her physician and force them to live according to the employer's beliefs. Once again: The ultimate goal of the GOP is to deny birth control medicines to women; it's clearly stated in the Blunt Amendment, so I'm only stating what the GOP itself has made into a new social agenda.

Why do you think YOU get to make decisions for companies? Form you own company, offer better insurance as a perk and get the better workers. You're not going to force your workers to get insurance are you? I ask because you love to use force to get what you want.

It isn't about me...it's about the personal freedom of over 50% of the population, and why the other half has decided, after covering b.c. when
it's needed for decades, has suddenly decided that it's a political issue instead of a personal right. I advocate the force of nothing; force enters the equation when women are forced to make medical decisions based on their employer's religion. FYI, the DH owns his own business, provides
health care (at great cost), but would never deign to insert himself into the private lives of female employees.

So you want to force someone to do something they don't want to? It's always about the use of force with people like you isn't it? The boss can decide if the nurse stays on or gets fired. It's not your call as much as you'd like the control and want it to be.

And apparently you want to force women to live by the arbitrary whims of employers. If that belief should prevail, we'll see the day when businesses
will hire only employees who pass their personal, religious litmus tests. That clearly violates freedom of religion, a sacred American tenet. It forces employees to either conform or be duplicitous. That an employer's
personal beliefs trumps the religious freedom of hundreds if not thousands
of employees flies in the face of freedom of religion. How is it that my medical care should not be "my call?" How is it that such oppression could be justified?

I don't think you understand property rights. Since when do YOU get to force someone to hire or not hire another? It's not your call unless YOU are the boss. Stay out of others business unless it is denying someone their rights. No one has a right to a job.
By all means if you want to protest and spread they word about a perceived wrong go right ahead. I'll back you 100 percent as a part of society to fight against prejudices. BUT I will not help your cause if its going to deny someone their religious freedom. Government has no standing in morality. Government cannot be moral. Or have you forgotten about slavery, or denying women the vote, or Jim Crow laws or throwing Japanese Americans in jails during WW2? HELLOOOOOOOO???

This has nothing to do with hiring practices, unless you ascribe to the scenario that an employer can force their religious beliefs on their employees. I'd suggest that perhaps you should take your own advice and
"Stay out of others' business," particularly when the Blunt Amendment and
the GOP are insisting that they know better than a woman and her doctor.
You seem to be far more concerned about an employer somehow being
"denied their religious rights" than about the millions of women who would be affected negatively by being forced to adopt that employer's beliefs
themselves. If that isn't a clearly defined case of prejudice, what is? If that isn't coercion, what is? There are laws in place to guarantee one's
freedom from religious persecution, which is what the GOP appears to be intent on ending by putting the faith of the few above the various faiths of the many. Those laws exist in part due to the unfortunate historical
wrongs that you list.

fyi-You don't need auto insurance in some states just the ability to cover the cost if an accident arises.

I've lived in other states, and I'm well aware of "the rules of the road,"
as I've been driving for several decades now. This has nothing to do with the issue of denying someone their right to the optimal treatments in terms of health care. See my following response for clarification.

No one has the right to drive a car on government roads, that's a privilege. You do have a right to travel. Look up what the difference between a right and a privilege is then get back to me because you do not know. Your entire argument is based on that misperception.
Big government is one that forces people to have health insurance, period.

If one is required to learn to drive, pass a test, receive a license, procure insurance and retake the test at intervals, why should health care be of lesser importance? And how do you exercise the right to travel if one doesn't have the right to drive on government roads? Are we to cut through fields? That's self-contradictory. You see health care as a privilege while I see it as a right, and a fundamental one at that. As long as people can't afford health care insurance, everyone pays for the care that they may eventually receive. Shame on the greatest country on Earth with "quality health care" that refuses to care for its own, and often the poorest, youngest or eldest at that. The most vulnerable are being left out of the equation.

Nope Quit making things up in order to further a twisted agenda.

It is sensible, but quit making things up about how I think in order to fit a twisted agenda. Unlike you I'm not going to use force on someone because I disagree with their lifestyle. You will as you have proven in this silly post of yours.

The use of a question mark clearly makes a sentence into an interrogatory one. I was asking if you are against prophylactic medicine. For clarity's
sake, that has nothing to do with condoms, but refers instead to tests and check-ups that can catch serious conditions at an early stage. I reiterate; that kind of care saves a great deal of money. In fact, Ms. Fluke's testimony illustrated exactly how a friend suffered because she went without the necessary treatment. Lady Justice is wondering why you're so exercised about a minority of employers as opposed to millions of female employees.

Because of your inability to separate fact from fiction is YOUR problem not mine. Continue to ignore and deny and make things up since you cannot address the issue. Only when YOU want to force people to do things YOUR way is it okay. You have proven that. You want to force insurance companies to bow to your will for the long term health of the people yet you don't want government to stop grocery stores that sell unhealthy food even when it causes harm to the long term health of people. I don't care how much you like pork, your thinking on this is very hypocritical.

Yet you would force females to live according to the religious beliefs of their employers. And yes, it would be "for the long term health of the people" if insurance companies paid for that care without religion being a consideration, unless it refers to the religion of the employee. Unlike diseases, dietary practices fall under the category of "personal responsibility, as I've said before. Since we now know that using contaceptives at an early age greatly reduces the risk of certain types of cancer in women, it makes the attempt to deny females such treatment doubly egregious. The case here is that women would be forced to live without adequate care based on the assessment and options determined by her and her physician due to the beliefs of others who aren't qualified to insert themselves into the process. Apparently the ability of a man to perform sexually is of more import to the GOP than womens' health and a reduction of unwanted pregnancies. Nowhere have I seen a suggestion that such treatments be denied unless it's for procreation.

Good that you've finally written a sentence where you didn't offer up lies on how I feel. If someone doesn't like the insurance a company offers, find another that does or purchase your own. THAT is personal responsibility. Quit looking to big government for help. All they do is increase costs and decrease efficiency.

There are over 40 million people without health care because they can't
afford it. Unemployment is rife. Very few people have the luxury to "shop"
for a better plan. As it stands, my neighbor doesn't have the right to see a top-notch orthopedic surgeon because he isn't in her "insurance tier."
To think that employers and insurance comnpanies won't collude in ever
more creative ways to deny people the best care possible in order to save money is to not think beyond the present.

LMAO YOU want to force others to purchase insurance on what YOU think is the right way to do things. Your way of thinking is the entire problem.
You will deny a person who runs their company the ability to exercise their rights as a property owner to establish their own health care which DOES not deny any person their rights. if a highly religious person does not want to offer certain insurance based on beliefs I may not like it but I will not force them to change. If I can get enough people to back me and we all threaten to leave maybe that person will change their mind. If not then another company will get the benefits of our labor. The free market tells us to not fish from a small pond when a larger pond of employees is better for business. The free market does not use force to accomplish it either.

Yes, that's how it works. Millions of women, many of them Republican,
didn't hesitate to let Congress know that they were overstepping their
boundaries by allowing an employer to dictate the terms of health insurance based on religion. It will happen again.

That's your misguided perception which furthers YOUR twisted agenda. You make things up because YOU cannot accept the truth. Show me how a company forces someone to not purchase insurance when that company doesn't want to provide it. I'll be waiting.

When a panel on birth control is convened and there are no women on it, I'd say that's a good example of men trying to define what's acceptable
according to their preconceptions about women. I make up nothing; I make observations. No employer can prevent a person from obtaining
insurance, but they do have the ability to choose a plan that best fits the needs of the employees. Ideally that would be done without consulting a religious authority for approval.

I will however not allow YOU or anyone else to impose their agenda on me. If my religion says to not eat meat on a certain day do not force me to eat meat on that day. In the same thought process do not force me to NOT eat meat on that day.

You do not know the difference between a right and a privilege so why comment? Most of your post is a joke of misguided perceptions and ignorance.

Quit making things up in order to fit a twisted agenda. No one is denying others their ability to get health insurance.

So what you're saying here is that the women who are for the use of force in order to make companies cover health care are right and the women who are against it are wrong?
The only thing hypoctritical are your assinine statements saying you have a right to health care AND it has to be a certain way.

Quit making things up in order to fit a twisted agenda

Not much of substance in this entire post. A lot of ignorance no doubt. Alot of lies about what I believe in, in order to fit a twisted agenda.

btw I do not have religion. I haven't been to church in ages. I will fight for others religious freedom. You probably don't know this but religious freedom was one of the reasons we fought a revolution. Unlike you I do not advocate stealing others property in order to get what I want.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
The rest merely recaps your fervent belief that I'm determined to force you to do something that violates principles which you then deny having.
Again, the inverse reflects reality; the current GOP stance would deny
treatment to women based on religious tenets. That comes dangerously close to the imposition of religion on women, creating a situation in which
the state violates the Constitution by forcing women to conform to a certain set of religious standards. The irony is that, were a Muslim doctor
to force his employees to live by the Islamic creed, you would likely be as
exercised about that as you are by the possibility that Christians continue
to provide health care without a religious standard. I appreciate and agree with Gandhi, and would add my own from Thomas Jefferson:

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our god alone. I enquire after no man's and trouble none with mine; nor is it
given to us in this life to know if yours or mine, our friend's or our foe's,
are exactly the right."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:15 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top